Search This Blog

An Auburn fan has a Penn State Opinion

AUPPL Note: First, apologies for 3 months in between posts. Sometimes (as it normally does), the real world just kicks your butt sometimes. Second, I originally thought about posting this over at my new home for most of my content, CollegeAndMagnolia.com but since it was not really Auburn related and is completely my opinion then I felt it best tucked away over here on my little solo corner of the internet. Finally, this is neither Auburn football or baseball related so if you were coming for either of those things, I'll try to have more content of that regard soon. If you'd like to hear one fan's opinion on the Penn State situation? Then by all means proceed.

The
punishment of criminals should serve a purpose. When a man is hanged he is
useless .-Voltaire

Twitter was abuzz yesterday and today about Penn State, the NCAA,
and sanctions and fines as a result of the school’s role in the Sandusky sex
scandal. Is it necessary or even applicable to punish the school now? Who
exactly is being punished?

It’s hard for me to grasp.

As the Penn State scandal unfold and watched people ask aloud, “When
does the NCAA get involved?”’; most sports writers were in agreement that this
was NOT an NCAA issue. Then the Freeh Report was published and the mood began
to shift. An image was tarnished (justly or unjustly so is not for me to decide,
nor is it my place), a school has been irreparably changed forever, and the
common drum beat has changed to a steady march to the gallows for a University
athletic program.

Let’s clear some up some key points. Points I will not disagree
with: Child rape is wrong. Jerry Sandusky is by all counts a monster and
predator. Joe Paterno and others in the PSU administration took a course of
action that was both felonious and morally reprehensible. These are all points
that have been established, are concrete, and I am in complete agreement with.

What I can’t agree with is the NCAA’s involvement.

Is this even an NCAA issue? Not at all. This is a criminal issue.
It was tried in a criminal court; it was handled by our legal system; and for
all intents and purposes, it is over. Any type of retribution or penalties or judgments
will be awarded by courts and not by a toothless governing body headquartered
in Indianapolis, Indiana.

The only reason this even involves the NCAA or that people are
asking for justice by Mark Emmert and crew is because it involves sports. That’s
it.

Or is it?

This doesn’t really involve sports. This is not a sports issue. It
does not affect eligibility. It does not affect the well being of athletes.
This involves children and terrible crimes against them. The counterargument is
valid: That Jerry Sandusky’s future actions could have been prevented but were
not because of, “a series of failures all
the way up the university’s chain of command that it concluded were the result
of an insular and complacent culture in which football was
revered.”

To me, it still holds true to an extent. While I don’t believe
that barring Sandusky from the use of Penn State facilities would have
prevented future rapes (a rapist will just find another place); I also don’t
think that he should have had continued access to facilities. Nor should he
have gone unreported for so long.

However, this still is not an NCAA issue. The NCAA’s core purpose
(as outlined by themselves) is:

to govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount.

The NCAA governs competition. Sports. Games. It does not govern the
schools day to day actions unless those actions directly or indirectly create
an unfair and competitive playing field. There are other organizations that can
handle applicable punishments. If the Freeh’s report was that the culture of
Penn State was too entrenched or tightly wrapped around athletics then they
should have lost their accreditation as an institution. Similarly to how Auburn
University is accredited by SACS, Penn State is accredited by the Middle States Commission on
Higher Education. Another avenue of punishment is through the American
Association of Universities.

However, to punish the University through either of these avenues
reaffirms one of my core issues with the NCAA’s involvement. It punishes people
who had no say, no action, no participation in the crimes involved.

A buzzword bandied about is “The Lack of Institutional Control”.
Explain to me how that applies to Penn State in this case. Before you do, read
over the NCAA’s own definition
of LoIC:

In determining whether there has been a lack of institutional control when a violation of NCAA rules has been found it is necessary to ascertain what formal institutional policies and procedures were in place at the time the violation of NCAA rules occurred and whether those policies and procedures, if adequate, were being monitored and enforced. It is important that policies and procedures be established so as to deter violations and not merely to discover their existence after they have taken place. In a case where proper procedures exist and are appropriately enforced, especially when they result in the prompt detection, investigation and reporting of the violations in question, there may be no lack of institutional control although the individual or individuals directly involved may be held responsible.

I’ve yet to see where Sandusky’s crimes and the inaction by administration
violated any type in NCAA by-laws. Not to make light or be glib in the matter,
but child rape does not exactly foster a competitive advantage for a school.

Again, the action of Sandusky and Paterno are not NCAA violations.
Yes, one could argue (and I’ve heard this before) that if they covered this up,
imagine what else they’ve covered up. That may be true. It may be that PSU was
able to hide NCAA violations in the past. Before this event, PSU was looked at
as one of the cleanest programs in the Association.

Even when Auburn was hit with the dreaded LoIC, it came as a
result of Pat Dye having too much power as both Head Football Coach and
Athletic Director. It also came after the NCAA found that Auburn had broken
NCAA rules. Auburn was creating a competitive disadvantage. We were punished
accordingly.

The NCAA will (and has argued) that Penn State appears in
violation of By-Law 19.01.2 or the “Exemplary Conduct” By-Law,
which states:

“Individuals employed by or associated with member institutions for the administration, the conduct or the coaching of intercollegiate athletics are, in the final analysis, teachers of young people. Their responsibility is an affirmative one, and they must do more than avoid improper conduct or questionable acts. Their own moral values must be so certain and positive that those younger and more pliable will be influenced by a fine example. Much more is expected of them than of the less critically placed citizen.”

The NCAA has stated that it used this violation in the past. That
is true. In fact, it’s normally tacked on to any NCAA punishment as an
additional violation. What I’ve never seen or heard of is violation of the
By-Law being used as the strict basis of punishment.

In their letter to PSU, the NCAA also detailed that the school
could have possibly violated by-laws: 10.01.1, 11.1.1, and 11.1.2.1. By-law
10.01 goes into what the NCAA deems “unethical conduct”. However, each of these
10 issues listed as unethical by the NCAA (and their catch-all wording that
these are not the end-all-be-all of unethical conduct, just a starting point)
all have to deal with the eligibility of athletes. By-laws 11.1.1 and 11.1.2.1
make the same points but apply them to Coaches and other administrative personnel.

Again, all of these involve the eligibility of student athletes.
The Penn State situation has not (to my knowledge) revealed anything that
jeopardizes the eligibility of student athletes.

To me, it seems like the NCAA heard everyone asking “Hey, what are
you guys going to about Penn State”, looked around confused, re-read their own
by-laws and said…”Hey, wait, maybe we can stick them on 19.01.2”

I’m not saying that was happened at Penn State is not terrible and
morally bankrupt. I’m simply arguing that it did not violate the core concept
of the NCAA Rules. It did not create a competitive advantage and did not affect
the eligibility of athletes. Again, that’s what the NCAA should police: College
Sports. What it should not and cannot police are criminal activities. We
already have systems in place to deliver punishments in those areas.

When the NCAA
has gotten involved it has involved the eligibility of athletes. Even when
other criminal issues such as assault, point-shaving, gambling, and even murder
have been involved, the NCAA was able to act because there were violations of eligibility.

Why should the NCAA not get involved or twist its own guidelines
to enact punishment? Simply put, because doing so opens up Pandora’s Box and
allows the NCAA to overstep their boundaries.

Even the NCAA knows that this is something completely out of their
wheelhouse:

"Suffice to say that if there is information that points to an impropriety as it relates to the administration of the athletics program, that's valid [for the NCAA to investigate Penn State]," said association spokesman Bob Williams.

"What people are kind of missing here, this is extraordinary in a bad way," an NCAA source said. "The Division I rulebook could never anticipate this ... Our rulebook is very specific in the way institiuions administer athletic programs … This is something different."

The
Association has admitted (and I agree) that this is unprecedented. Obviously,
they could never have foreseen this being an issue. However, that doesn’t mean
they need to now make an NCAA issue because of the public wanting
action.

Two former chairmen of the NCAA infractions committee as well as former NCAA investigators said last week that the Penn State case, while egregious in nature and scope, might not qualify as an enforcement issue and that the NCAA's involvement in such a case would be rare, if not unprecedented.

"You might argue that by what Sandusky did do and by what Penn State did not do, that it is a violation of ethical conduct, but I don't think I have ever seen it used in that fashion," former infractions committee chairman David Swank said. "My opinion would be that it is not (an enforcement issue). There are other venues to take care of the problems that occurred at Penn State, and one of those is not the NCAA."

The NCAA being able to dictate and liberally apply nebulously
worded by-laws is, to me, the most dangerous precedent to set. You have rules.
You have established these rules. These rules govern a certain aspect of life
and culture (in this case the eligibility of student-athletes) and no more. I
do not ask the City of Auburn’s Housing Authority to tell me what temperature I
should store ground beef in a supermarket. No, there are different agencies to
handle and determine rules and regulations.

The NCAA creating their own rules, on the fly, at the behest of
the masses would allow them to essentially rule ANYTHING as a violation, even
if it didn’t violate specific NCAA rules. For example, say coach was a smoker.
Smoking is not illegal. However, one could argue that Coach X, by constantly
smoking in his office or by letting his players see him smoke would not set a
good example for his players. The NCAA could now simply say, “Well coach, we
think that’s wrong that you smoke around players. We now issue a 2 scholarship
reduction”. Yes, that example is overkill, but it still gives an example of
what the newfound power of the NCAA.

Not every criminal matter is an NCAA issue. If a coach commits
adultery (which in some states is a criminal matter) does that really affect
the eligibility of his players? No. Is it an NCAA issue? No.

Chuck Smrt, who was on the NCAA enforcement staff for more than 17 years, said that the NCAA involvement in the case could open a Pandora's Box for the organization in the future regarding criminal activities on campuses across the nation.

"Then the next time an athletic staff member at another school is involved in criminal activity, are you going to look at whether other staff members were aware and followed up on that?" Smrt said. "When a coach is involved in criminal activity, does every school then need to review who knew what along the way and assess whether there has been unethical conduct? Or does it relate only to the significance of the criminal activity? And then, well, where do you draw that line?"

The biggest issue with the NCAA getting involved is just who,
exactly, are they punishing?

All in all,
punishment hardens and renders people more insensible; it concentrates; it
increases the feeling of estrangement; it strengthens the power of resistance.-Nietzche

If the NCAA wants to make this a football issue by issuing
scholarship reductions and bowl bans then you are punishing players who, again,
had no part in the initial crime. The punishment will come after the actions of
administrators but you are punishing players. Players who did not commit to
play for Jerry Sandusky and future players who did not commit to play for Joe
Paterno. I’ve heard it mentioned that when SMU was hit with the Death Penalty that
it punished players who had no role in that scandal. That doesn’t make it any
better. It also doesn’t change my feeling that the Death Penalty is absolute
overkill by the NCAA and ultimately punishes those not responsible. It punishes
those who stayed. Personally, the Death Penalty is using a hand grenade on a house
fly.

Penn State seems safe from the Death Penalty. At least, according
to most sources. However, they do seem to face staggering fines and penalties
of a monetary sort (such as bowl bans). Who does that really hurt? Does that
even make a difference?

One source put the fine in the $60 Million range. That’s all well
and good but last year’s Athletic Revenue for PSU was around $116 Million. Some
of that $60 Million could undoubtedly be made up through private donations. I’m
sure there are more than a few Penn State fans ready to open up their
checkbooks to help restore the Blue and White to their once proud status. They
will donate to show they still stand by their school.

What that fine WILL affect is PSU’s other sports. Basketball, Baseball,
Tennis, etc. Most of the Olympic sports will probably have to deal with fewer
resources, less accommodations, fewer renovations. For a school that is
supposedly being penalized for having a football-first culture, any monetary
penalty will damage the football program the least. Football will still be king
and it will still be the quickest to recover.

No, the same athletes the NCAA is trying to protect will now be
punished for doing nothing else than attending a school. Yes, there are always
collateral damages in NCAA penalties. People who took no part in violations
will be punished (unfairly). That doesn’t make it any better. In fact, that
continued allowance of others to be punished for the crimes of few makes it
even worse. It develops a sense of disenfranchisement. It reaffirms that
position of second class citizen. Yes, you’re an NCAA athlete but you don’t
play football. You will still get punished like you were.

Criminals do
not die by the hands of the law. They die by the hands of other men.–George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

For all intents and purposes, Penn State is dead. They will never
be the same. The public sentiment, the fall of an idol, the constant judgment
and more. Sure, they will return to some
sense of normalcy after a few years, but whenever someone hears “Penn State” no
matter the context, it will be overshadowed by taunts of “child-rapists” and “cover-ups”.
Is that fair? That’s not for me to say. Have the people involved been punished
enough? Probably not. Should the people not involved be punished by an
organization that has no authority over this case? Absolutely not.

Comments

Hi, great site, very informative. Would you please consider adding a link to my website on your page. We are happy to offer you a 10% discount to our Online Store if you do so. Please email me back and I would be happy to give you our link.